Calorie Burn, can it be believed?

topazkk

Hi folks, I rode 58 miles today and my cycle computer told me that I'd burned 5465 calories, is this credible? When I set up the cycle computer I had to input my age and weight which I presume has a bearing on same. What sort of readings are anyone else getting. Cheers.:p

KStaford

sounds a bit optomistic, more like 1500 calories I'd say. Are you sure it's now showing you aggregate figures

topazkk

KStaford wrote: »

sounds a bit optomistic, more like 1500 calories I'd say. Are you sure it's now showing you aggregate figures

Yes, reset it before the off. (I presume you meant not showing aggregate).

**Timbuk2**

I highly doubt it was actually that high. A figure of 1500-2000 would be more on the mark, but I'm no expert.

As a matter of interest, how long did it take you?

Redsoxfan

If 58 miles = 1500-2000 calories, is it safe to assume that 8 miles = c. 250 calories?

topazkk

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

I highly doubt it was actually that high. A figure of 1500-2000 would be more on the mark, but I'm no expert.

As a matter of interest, how long did it take you?

3hrs 20 mins. I ain't fast. The computer has got a HRM facility but I never wear the belt maybe it requires heart rate to accurately calculate burn.

Ryaner

The figures are based on weight usually. I burn around 900calories per hour at the moment while averaging 20-25km per hour. I am 94KG however.

Traumadoc

http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calories-burned-by.php?search=cycling

Lumen

Traumadoc wrote: »

http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/calories-burned-by.php?search=cycling

Looked OK initially, but the formulas are wonky.

bicycling 16- 19 mph, racing/ not drafting or >19 mph drafting, very fast, racing general
441 (Kcals) in 30 minutes for a person weighing 70 kg
882 (Kcals) in 30 minutes for a person weighing 140 kg

Calories burned in cycling are surely not directly proportional to weight, unless you're going up a very steep hill.

Anyway, for me (<70kg) it's about 400-900 calories per hour depending on level of effort.

topazkk

My trip yesterday was very strange first 30 miles heading into strong NW wind on road slightly sheltered in places some of which on what's used on the Carrick to Clonmel leg of Sean Kelly tour, return leg (28 miles) on clonmel to Waterford road (very open) with wind mostly behind me, my speed up to 28mph and rarely below 23 mph.

Lumen

More discussion here and elsewhere.

Bike computers all seem to significantly overestimate calories.

In any case, the picture is complicated by affects of exercise on resting metabolism.

Ryder

As most people said, they are almost completly inaccurate. They usually use body weight time and av hr to work out the calories, but big difference between a 100kg rider with 15 and 25 percent fat. Also the fact that you werent wearing your hr strap is a clue.

Nietzschean

Ryder wrote: »

As most people said, they are almost completly inaccurate. They usually use body weight time and av hr to work out the calories, but big difference between a 100kg rider with 15 and 25 percent fat. Also the fact that you werent wearing your hr strap is a clue.

the garmins anyway it seems don't use the HR or cadence data at all when looking at calorie burn, judging from google the polars might be using the hr data though..... (on some site i saw that normally roughly 50 - 60% of what the garmin reports is much better)

rubadub

topazkk wrote: »

I'd burned 5465 calories, is this credible?

topazkk wrote: »

3hrs 20 mins.

That is 1639kcal per hour which is incredible.

Carawaystick

rubadub wrote: »

That is 1639kcal per hour which is incredible.

It's an average of 1900 watts or so.... or 2 and a bit horsepower...

Lumen

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's an average of 1900 watts or so.... or 2 and a bit horsepower...

Well, it's only about 450W of power at the crank. The human body is not very efficient.

rubadub

Lots of estimates here http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htm